Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport and Infrastructure

Close
Home / News and Insights / Blogs / Real Estate / 217: Decision overturned on break clause exercised at empty shell of premises

Following on from our last blog post on break rights, the Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision and decided that a break right requiring vacant possession was actually satisfied even where the premises was left incapable of use.

In Capital Park Leeds v Global Radio Services, the High Court held that a tenant had not complied with a requirement to give vacant possession as condition to a break clause in a commercial lease. The tenant had left an empty shell by stripping out from the premises substantially more than it should have, including removing the ceiling features, floor features, window sills, pipework, ventilation ducts, lighting heating and more.

The High Court had held that the break clause was not validly exercised as the commercial premises delivered up on the break date was no longer the same premises as defined in the lease. The tenant was deemed not to have not given back the premises with vacant possession.

The Court of Appeal has overturned this decision and decided that vacant possession requires the tenant to return the property to the landlord free from the usual ‘trilogy of people, chattels, and interests’.

Global Radio Services as tenant had given vacant possession on the break date, even though it left an empty shell. To interpret the situation otherwise would have unintended implications for the parties and undermine business common sense.

The landlord’s remedy should have been to seek compensation from the tenant for the losses it had suffered from the substantial features having being removed from the building.

Indeed, the Court of Appeal made it clear that a tenant wishing to exercise a break clause has to comply with any conditions attached to the exercise of the clause, but those conditions should not necessarily be interpreted so as to favour the landlord.

This case gives clarity to the meaning of ‘vacant possession’ as a condition, which means removal of people, chattels and interests.

Related Articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
50/60 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JH

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

© BDB Pitmans 2024. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Real Estate chevron
Transport and Infrastructure chevron